Computer input and output devices have been in use for several years. In what has been coined the “Mother of All Demos,” Douglas Englebart of the Stanford Research Institute first demonstrated a mouse computer input device in conjunction with a computer display and also demonstrated dynamic file linking, in 1968. See Stanford University, The Demo, Clip 3 et seq., of the Stanford University Science & Technology in the Making website available on the World Wide Web at sloan.Stanford.edu (accessed May 31, 2012). By moving a mouse input device in a Cartesian plane and actuating input buttons, a cursor may correspondingly be positioned on a display matrix to actuate control features, such as file-summoning links (“hyperlinks”), appearing on the display.
More recently, additional control features, beyond hyperlinks, have been made actuable on displays, and displays have also expanded to include scrolling, hovering, 3D and RSS capabilities, all of which enlarge the universe of actuable features that may appear on an output display for control by a user with an input and/or output device. In certain instances, and especially in the context of the World Wide Web, displays may dynamically update actuable and other display elements based on input from external information and command sources.
In the context of displaying dynamic media subjects from a format with a time variable (such as a movie from a movie file), solutions have included refreshing pixels populating a 2-dimensional (“2-D”) display, usually progressively, at a given “refresh rate,” in hertz. In such systems, horizontal rows of pixels of the display are altered seriatim, top-to-bottom, in each refreshment, to match the state of the media for a given point in time being displayed. The media itself is also often recorded and output in terms of instances of time, such as a photographic shutter speed or “frame rate,” which may or may not match the refresh rate of the display. Even in the most modern devices, the refresh rate and shutter speed can sometimes combine their spacings with one another unpredictably, causing apparent motion anomalies, such as flicker and judder. This may be true when refreshment and shutter speeds are non-factorial with respect to one another. Processing methods altering frames to achieve matched spacing of frames in the output refreshment (such as 3-2 pull-down) may reduce flicker but may increase judder by exaggerating the length of some frames, and may also cause other visual disturbances, such as interlaced, disagreeing frames. In addition, various processing times and routines of a computer and display system, and external media source, may widely vary the display rate of actuable features of a display. For example, LED or OLED technology, while currently extremely popular, with wide dynamic range and color capabilities and flat-panel proportions, may experience pixel and display uniformity issues, for example, because residual voltage from prior frames affects the output of pixels in new, refreshed frames or because pixels do not refresh gradually or smoothly enough, or because “motion smoothing” techniques introduce artifacts due to erroneous frame interpolation.